To: one_less who wrote (39905 ) 3/23/1999 3:44:00 PM From: Neocon Respond to
Brees---- The traditional Christian view is not that God had animal needs, but that God is one in Being, expressed in three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), and that the Second Person of the Trinity was mystically united to a human nature to create a single personality, "true God and true man", who could stand for mankind as the perfect sacrifice for all sins, and through whose sacrifice those who accepted the gift could be redeemed. The message is secondary to the gospel, the "good news that "God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son", who was crucified, died and was buried, and arose on the third day.The idea is not, then, that people "have to go through him (through the message God sent him to deliver) to be judged by God worthy of the rewards of heaven," but that they accept the gift of his sacrifice. "Jesus was a man who had needs, he slept, ate, prayed, was tempted, fasted, etc. In other words he was a member of the temporal created universe": this is certainly true of his human nature, but not his Divine nature, which mystically participates in the experiences."...makes the claim that the all powerful God has the same base animal needs that we have": know one said that all of this occured because of sexual desire. Of course it is true that the doctrine of the Trinity states that it is part of God's nature to be a Father, and to be a Son as well, in union with the Spirit. The Son is supposed to have existed eternally, in his divine nature, although not in his human nature:"Before Abraham was, I am "...I say all of this as one who is not convinced that it is true...By the way, the Immaculate conception refers to Mary having been born without Original Sin. The proper term for the circumstance of Christ is the Virgin Birth...
